$~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1635/2026 KARTIK RANA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Ms. Rajshree Singh & Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advocates.

versus AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, SC, AAI with Mr.

Archit Mishra, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 05.02.2026

1. The Petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) with the Airports Authority of India (“AAI”). According to the Petitioner, his application was successfully submitted, and he was issued an admit card. He appeared in the Computer Based Test (“CBT”), successfully cleared the same, and his name appeared in the list of successful candidates published on 04^th September, 2025. Thereafter, he was required to report for document verification and completion of physical tests, which were scheduled between 28^th December, 2025 and 20^th January, 2026. At that stage, the Petitioner produced a domicile certificate showing that he is a domicile of Delhi, having been born, brought up, and educated in Delhi. However, his candidature was rejected on the ground of an invalid domicile certificate, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

2. Mr. Sudhir Naagar, counsel for the Petitioner, submits that once the Petitioner had been shortlisted and called for the second stage of the recruitment process, the domicile certificate produced at that stage ought to have been accepted. He contends that the advertisement did not stipulate that the domicile certificate must have been issued prior to the cut-off date of 05^th March, 2025, and therefore the Respondents have acted arbitrarily by reading into the advertisement a condition which was never notified. It is further argued that the Petitioner’s status as a domicile of Delhi is not in dispute, as he was born, brought up, and educated in Delhi, and his residence and other supporting documents have been found to be genuine. The domicile certificate merely formalises an already existing factual status, and issuance of the certificate at a later date cannot negate his substantive eligibility. The impugned rejection is thus arbitrary, hyper-technical, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the Petitioner has otherwise cleared the CBT and secured marks above the cut-off.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Digvijay Rai, SC for the Respondent, opposes the petition and submits that no indulgence can be shown to the Petitioner, as he failed to upload the domicile certificate at the stage of submission of the online application, which was a mandatory requirement clearly spelt out in the instructions to applicants. It is submitted that documents uploaded at the application stage are subsequently verified, and therefore mere participation in and clearing of the CBT does not confer any vested right. This is not a case where the domicile certificate was issued after the cut-off date and uploaded later, but a case where the Petitioner admittedly never uploaded the domicile certificate at the initial stage. Consequently, the document verification process necessarily failed. The furnishing of the domicile certificate at a later stage, it is contended, is of no consequence. It is further pointed out that several other candidates were similarly rejected on account of invalid domicile certificates, including five candidates from Delhi, and therefore the Petitioner has not been singled out.

4. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. Since the controversy pertains to eligibility, it is necessary to advert to the relevant conditions contained in the recruitment advertisement. The instructions for submission of the online application, inter alia, is as follows:

xx….. xx….. xx……

14. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS :

1. Only candidates who are Domicile of Chandigarh, Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar